Scientific proof that God exists?

[Nolik_19]

Scientific proof that there is a god? I have read completely different scientific studies of human evolution

[1715159349]

1715159349

[1715159349]

1715159349

[1715159349]

1715159349

[solehdavid]

just because we were created does not mean that we were not created by another life form. we cannot look at everything that created us as god. we as humans can create and sustain things even with our limited technological knowledge. another life form could have created us, god could have created us (if it exists). unless god communicates with us or we see with our own eyes that he communicates with someone, we cannot be sure. without proof, every human being will believe what they think is true. what is certain is to believe in something that we know exists, just like we know that bitcoin exists (unless it is an illusion or a dream).

[BADecker]

just because we were created does not mean that we were not created by another life form. we cannot look at everything that created us as god. we as humans can create and sustain things even with our limited technological knowledge. another life form could have created us, god could have created us (if it exists). unless god communicates with us or we see with our own eyes that he communicates with someone, we cannot be sure. without proof, every human being will believe what they think is true. what is certain is to believe in something that we know exists, just like we know that bitcoin exists (unless it is an illusion or a dream).

We were created by another form of life - God. The only thing that created us was God, so there isn't any "everything that created us" to it. Why? Because all of life that we are is encapsulated by all the physics of the universe. Without every aspect of the physics of the universe that exists, we would be different. The only thing great enough to make the whole universe work together is God.

We simply are not aware of enough science to suggest accurately that another form of life that is not God could have aided in our creation.

God attempts to communicate with us through nature. But it doesn't seem to work. So, He went to all the trouble of making a "Bible" for us, with the idea that we pray, and the answer will be found in the Bible. But we even resist this form of communication with Him.

Science has proven Cause and Effect (C&E), Entropy, and great Complexity. These cannot exist in their current form without God. It is only Someone like God that can stabilize them as they are, universe-wide.

[violastan2]

There is no scientific proof that God exists. The concept of God is based on personal faith and beliefs, which cannot be proven or disproven using science.

[BADecker]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, is almost scientific proof for God all by itself.

When you realize the depths of this complexity, you will see that it couldn't have happened by accident. It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

Constructs have constructors.

[odolvlobo]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.

Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

[digaran]

There is no scientific proof that God exists. The concept of God is based on personal faith and beliefs, which cannot be proven or disproven using science.

Who writes computer code? 🤔
Who wrote DNA code?🤔
These questions taunt me every night.😂

[BADecker]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.

Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

It's all around you. The simple way to say it is 'entropy'. Things gradually change from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around. When they appear to go from simplicity to complexity, it's because there is even greater complexity that "programmed" this appearance. In other words, there is lack of scientific knowledge about how deep the complexity goes.

This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that energy can't be destroyed or created. Rather, it has to do with the modality of the energy... the way it exists and reacts with and upon itself.

[odolvlobo]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.
Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

... entropy ...

Entropy refers to an entire system and not an isolated part. Energy coming from the sun powers the creation, sustenance, and evolution of life and all of its complexity.

[digaran]

Complexity of the universe, the Earth and life, ... It's too big and too complex to be anything other than a construct.

In order to back up that statement you have to show that a construct is the only possibility, and that there are no other possibilities, including inconceivable ones.
Otherwise, it is only your opinion and not a fact.

... entropy ...

Entropy refers to an entire system and not an isolated part. Energy coming from the sun powers the creation, sustenance, and evolution of life and all of its complexity.

Can you tell me the probability of life forming by itself/ accident in the given time of earth's age? How long does it take for elements to come together and form a living organism? If you knew the answer, you wouldn't have said that energy from the sun creates life.

If you put necessary elements that are needed to form as a living organism in a jar/ planet, it would take trillions of years for them to form, and that's just the estimate when we account for the probability. Earth is not that old.

[BADecker]

... entropy ...

Entropy refers to an entire system and not an isolated part. Energy coming from the sun powers the creation, sustenance, and evolution of life and all of its complexity.

So, why did you leave out the part I wrote about energy not being created or destroyed?

The fact of all energy existing, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its simplicity or complexity. This means that entropy could be in an entire system, the system becoming simpler in its action and reaction with itself.

Our observations show that the forms that energy exist in are going from complex to simple... entropy.

[Koceila]

Logically science can not prove the existence or even the non-existence of what we call "god", the last one is supposed to be behind science and behind logic, it is the power above all powers and forces, even so, science disapprove tje idea that life came from one couple (adam and eve). Scientists says that life can not start from just one couple and it can not give all these species, about that Darwins theory is the closest theory of evolution 1nd not the existence.

[BADecker]

Logically science can not prove the existence or even the non-existence of what we call "god", the last one is supposed to be behind science and behind logic, it is the power above all powers and forces, even so, science disapprove tje idea that life came from one couple (adam and eve). Scientists says that life can not start from just one couple and it can not give all these species, about that Darwins theory is the closest theory of evolution 1nd not the existence.

Science shows us that it is very difficult if not impossible for two, different species to mate successfully. It's hard enough believing that evolution could have happened once because of the complexity involved. But twice at the same time so there would be a mate? Out of the question.

[Gaza13]

In my opinion this question is very ridiculous, scientifically it cannot be proven scientifically, I can provide a little proof that the greatness of Allah does exist.

Al furqan verse 53 & Ar Rahman 19-20


At-Tur verse 6
https://youtu.be/tpy4eNFrC4g

Surah Asy-Syuara verses 63-66
The Parting of the Red Sea at the Time of Prophet Musa

Pharaoh's body QS Yunus: 92
He died in the Red Sea with his soldiers while chasing Prophet Musa AS. And, his body was later saved by Allah SWT. His body was preserved and can be found today

QS. Ar-Rum: 20
Creating humans that can reproduce

Before science developed rapidly, the message of the Koran from Khalid had been printed for hundreds of years, until now you can see the proof. what i mentioned above. and many more, that's just a little description of what I know.

I may want to ask those who believe in science

- Analogize how night and day change?

- How can science prove that Air exists?

- You believe in the existence of the Spirit, can you prove how when we sleep, the spirit is released when we sleep?

- You know the Human fingerprint, how is it formed, how does science think?

[sashapan]

I think that God is an old name, rather it is the center of a higher intelligence, the control of the entire universe, unequivocally, that someone created us..., that someone creates everything, and we are not alone in this universe, there is life on other planets too

[nicolas222]

The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and there is no scientific proof that God exists. While some people may argue that there are scientific proofs for the existence of God, such as near-death experiences, light, time, and matter/energy, these arguments are not universally accepted by the scientific community. Some scientists have attempted to formalize the existence of God using mathematical theorems, but these arguments are not conclusive and are often debated. Ultimately, the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven by science.

[BADecker]

The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and there is no scientific proof that God exists. While some people may argue that there are scientific proofs for the existence of God, such as near-death experiences, light, time, and matter/energy, these arguments are not universally accepted by the scientific community. Some scientists have attempted to formalize the existence of God using mathematical theorems, but these arguments are not conclusive and are often debated. Ultimately, the existence of God is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven by science.

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. Consider the complexity of the universe; we don't know it all, but what we know is exceedingly complex.

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

The universe is a complex machine made up of multitudes of smaller complex machines. Machines have makers. The Maker of the universe machine is great enough that He fits our definition of "God Almighty."

[odolvlobo]

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.

The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.

It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

[BADecker]

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.

The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.

It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.

"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.

The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.

Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.

[odolvlobo]

Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.

That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument.
The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it.
It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists.

You didn't quote the rest of what I posted.
"God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to.
The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God.
Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty.

I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows.

As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause".

In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god.